Should They Cut Off Your Big Mac ?
Dec 30th, 2009 | 11 responses
I was flipping channels tonight during dinner when I came across the latest reality show which features a family of ‘plus sized’ people trying to lose weight for their health (just to give you an example the 14 yr old son weighs 300 lbs and is the slimmest family member).
Aside from shaking my head at these kinds of shows I was also reminded of one of the topics on local radio the past few days, the fact that on Friday a new law will take effect in California which bans restaurants from using trans fats. For all of the wailing from some of the callers the impact is likely to be minimal since most places, especially most fast food places, have already switched.
But some callers also debated the merits and enforcability of such a law. They pointed out that for a 150 lb guy who eats a burger once in a while having a Big Mac is not really much of a health risk while for a 300 lb one eating a couple of french fries could trigger a blowout.
These same callers pointed out that in bars there is already a policy that if a person has had too much to drink they can be cut off so why not a similar policy in food places ?
If someone seems of decent weight they can order, if someone is overweight then they are limited. Other suggested that a scaling tax be assigned to pay for the future medical costs. While obviously all of this speculation is not going to work into actual laws or policies, I thought it might be fun for us to discuss.
So how would you protect us from ourselves ?
11 Responses to “Should They Cut Off Your Big Mac ?”
Gee, I don't know. How about we stop subsidizing unhealthy food (like corn) in the first place?
How about the government stop deciding what is best for every individual in the country. Not only is it expensive and annoying, the 'experts' change their minds every few years anyway. The very people glorifying 'diversity' seem hell bent on making sure everyone conforms to their idea of nutrition and body form. If the government wants to “recommend” something, fine. It's when they presume to have bureaucrats regulate it that it becomes onerous.
One of the downsides of government health care will be that the bureaucrats will now claim that virtually every aspect of a persons life has some implication for future cost of health care. This will be used as a license to demand behavioral change and penalize non-compliance. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. But this one has plenty of road signs pointing out where we are headed.
All government-control-paranoia aside, people have always found ways to indulge in unhealthy behavior when they wanted to, and this is likely to continue despite the work of those who advocate for a healthier society. I doubt most people would prefer a return to the days when smoking occurred nearly everywhere. Some of the younger folks here may not know this, but it was constant and ubiquitous – as were the health problems associated with it. I realize there is a component of society whose favorite obsession is railing against the govt (selectively of course
but that can end up being a smokescreen (no pun intended) for reasonable endeavors when taken too far.
[...] Should They Cut Off Your Big Mac ? (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
Uh, oh, ethanol, one off the biggest mistakes Bush made. and it is still around.
Tread mills. Starting in grade school, let them generate electricity in school. Draft age, girls can opt to do tread-mill duty instead of front-line duty. Still fat? Tread-mill credits to offset taxes due to enourmous HCR costs.
Sorry, duck, you lost me. I was talking about the way that farm subsidies for growing corn have made corn products, HFCS and fattier corn-fed beef artificially cheap (most of the money actually goes to corporate farms, making it another form of our beloved corporate welfare). Your tax dollars at work. I'm sure it affects ethanol prices also, but that would be just another *ahem* bonus to the program.
I meant all of the hupla over ethanol from corn. It almost doubled the cost of a bushel of corn for a while, and it really isn't that good or economical. Subsidies made the situation worse.
Right. I'd forgotten about that one. From what I've heard, the ethanol plants (there's one just a few miles from my home) can convert pretty easily into making bio-diesel, which sounds like a lot more practical idea.
I just get miffed when people talk about taxing unhealthy food, while we're simultaneously getting taxed to make it cheaper.
Don't get me started, but I equate the Bush corn ethanol push to O's Cash for Clunkers, two bad ideas. Only Clinton had a good idea: thongs for pantyhose.
… aaaand on that note, I'll have to wish you a happy New Year.